Borough of Point Pleasant Beach December 15, 2022
The December 15, 2022 Regular Meeting of the Board of Adjustment opened at 7:30pm. The clerk read the notice of compliance with the “Open public meetings act.” Present were Board members: Mr. Kelly, Mr. Dixon, secretary Schneider, Vice chair Reynolds, Chairman Struncius, Mr. Pasola, Mr. Driber, Ms. McFadden and Mr. Neill
Absent – McGee
Also, present –Karen Mills, Clerk, Ben Montenegro, Esq., Board attorney and Ray Savacool, Board Engineer
Court Reporter – Denise Sweet
Memorialize Resolutions
Motion by vice chair Reynolds, second by secretary Schneider to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2022-37 of John Gabrielli – 210 Washington Avenue – Block 19; Lot 6 – with conditions
In favor: Kelly, Schneider, Reynolds, Driber and McFadden
Opposed: None
Motion by Mr. Pasola, second by Mr. Kelly to memorialize the action and vote approving application #2022-26 of Constance Mancini – 303 Trenton Avenue – with conditions.
In favor: Kelly, Schneider, Dixon and Pasola
Opposed: None
Agenda
2022-41 – Richard Case – 925 Bay Avenue – Block 36; Lot 24 – Application for certification of pre-existing two-family use. Single Family home and garage apartment.
Exhibits entered
Exhibit A1 – Certified Application
Exhibit A2 – Borough Rental Licenses/C.O.’s; Cumberland Mutual Fire Insurance Declaration Pages; Dombrowski Appraisal dated 1/19/22; Deed from Chamberlain to Henry dated 12/27/49; Assessment Map Survey dated 2/10/49
Exhibit A3 – Power Point Packet (8 pages)
Exhibit A4 – Sanborn Maps
John Jackson, attorney for applicant, reviewed the situation with the applicant. House has been in the family for many years. Richard Case applicant, sworn stated that The subject property is located in the SF5 zone. The subject property contains two principal residential structures on a single lot. There is a three bedroom, two bath single family home (approximately 1285 SF) at the front of the lot fronting on Bay Avenue. At the rear of the lot, there is a second floor two-bedroom, one bath garage apartment (approximately 575 SF). He confirmed that the first floor of the garage apartment structure is non-habitable space. He noted there is a separate two car garage structure adjacent to the rear garage apartment structure. Through research, he has learned that the Borough Ordinance changed in 1971 to prohibit two principal dwelling units on one lot. He has been a resident of the Borough his whole life and this property was owned by his grandparents, then his parents prior to him, and as such, he is fully familiar with the subject property. He testified that the two principal residential structures, to wit, front single family home and rear second floor garage apartment has legally existed since before 1949. In support of that testimony, he referred to the 1949 survey of the property showing the two structures and defining the rear structure as a “garage and apartment.” He further referred to the 1949 deed transferring title to the property wherein the grantor Chamberlain retained life estate rights to reside “in the garage apartment located at the rear of said premises.” He site and produced the most recently issued copies of same. He testified that the two separate residential units have at all times been continuous, without abandonment, on the site. He further referred to the Sanborn maps entered as Exhibit A4 which suggest the two residential structures existed on site as far back as 1936. He proposes no modifications to the structure or any additional site improvements. He is solely seeking a certification that the existing two principal residential structures (front single-family home and rear second floor garage apartment) constitutes a legal nonconforming use and structures as same legally existed prior to the adoption of the Ordinance which rendered the use and structures nonconforming. He is in the process of attempting to sell the property which has precipitated the need for a formal approval pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-68.
Deliberations
Kelly – I have been through this with my rental property. This particular house I have know the owners back in the day and knew there was a rental.
Schneider – I am convinced that it has been a two family for quite a while.
Reynolds – Truly beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Pasola – Now the area well. I am confident it has been a rental for many years.
Dixon – Nothing to add
Davis – slam dunk
Driber Also agree
McFadden – I can add nothing additional
Struncius – With the proofs and the knowledge of the board I agree.
Motion by Mr. Pasola, second by Mr. Davis to approve application 2022-41 of Richard Case – 925 Bay Avenue – Block 36; Lot 24 –
In favor – Kelly, Schneider, Reynolds, Davis, Pasola, Dixon and Struncius
Opposed: None
Application approved
2022-25 – Clayton Greene – 210 Yale Avenue – Block 141 Lo 7 – Applicant proposes portico addition to single car garage.
Gregory J. Waga, Professional architect for the applicant, sworn, credentials accepted. Stated that he is a registered architect licensed in the State of New Jersey, who prepared the plans for the subject application and is fully familiar with the project, the subject property and surrounding neighborhood. Applicant and his wife are the title owners of the subject property. The subject property is located in the SF5 zone. Single family residential homes are a permitted use in the zone. There is an existing single family home on the subject property together with detached garage as shown on the plans submitted. It is Applicant’s intent per the plans submitted to add a covered patio with roof/portico attached to the existing detached garage as depicted. The proposal eliminates certain rear paver areas and reconfigures the front walkway so that the project provides for a net reduction in overall impervious coverage. He indicated that as part of the project the interior of the detached garage shall be finished to be utilized as a recreation space. Applicant agreed as a condition that there shall be no plumbing utilized in the detached garage; and the detached garage may not be converted or utilized for habitable living space. He testified that the site provides for 4 off street parking spaces which meets the RSIS criteria for parking. He agreed as a condition to modify the plan to clarify the exact calculation of the rear setback to the proposed covered patio (which he stated was slightly more than 4’ from the rear property line). He further clarified that the exact building coverage proposed by the project is 32.6%. He stated that the proposal satisfies the criteria for C(2) relief based upon the improvements proposed at the subject property which will be a zoning benefit while creating no detriment to the surrounding properties and that the proposal advances purposes of zoning as set forth in NJSA 40:55D-2 (a) and (i) – noting that the proposal provides for a functional and aesthetic improvement to the site; while the nonconformity creates no detriment to the public good. He believes there are no negative impacts created by the minimal deviations from strict compliance with the zoning ordinance and that the benefits advanced by the proposed development outweigh any detriments.
Deliberations
Kelly – You won’t be able to go directly into your garage anymore. You will have to be careful
Schneider – No plumbing – just electric so I have no issue.
Reynolds – Garage has been there for a quite few years and that will not change. Impervious coverage is being reduced. I think it is a deminimis change.
Pasola – I do not see how this could impact the neighbors at all.
Davis – I agree with what has been said. Structure does not have a negative impact.
Dixon – I am impressed you reduced the coverage – in favor
Driber – No plumbing – no problem
McFadden – I also agree with what has been said.
Struncius – I think that the type of structure that it is and that you worked to reduce impervious I am in favor
Motion by Mr. Dixon, second by Mr. Davis to approve application 2022-25 of Clayton Greene – 210 Yale Avenue – Block 141 Lot 7 – with conditions
In favor – Kelly, Schneider, Reynolds, Davis, Pasola, Dixon and Struncius
Opposed: None
Application approved with conditions
2022-39 – Jenkinson’s South – 202 & 204 Broadway – Block 159 – Lot 7 & 8 – Applicant looking to seek “D” variance to construct a storage building and parking lot.
John Jackson, attorney for applicant. John Jackson objected to the fact that Mayor and Council has appointed special counsel to object to the application.
Brian Clancey, special counsel attorney requested an adjournment to get caught up with this application.
Ben Montenegro, board attorney clarified the request and directed the board to process the information and move forward as they feel is appropriate. He does not feel there is a problem with the Borough participating.
John Jackson stated that he is ready to proceed and now has the added wrinkle of the Borough objecting.
Vice-Chair Reynolds believes that they application should move forward.
Ben Montenegro believes that John Jackson should direct his questions to Mayor and Council.
Deliberations on whether to move forward
Kelly – Rules are established by Mayor and Council. Believes we should move forward. We run around looking at properties and prepare and now we are told we can not move forward. No one told us not to vote on bill boards. What are we doing here – it’s crazy
Schneider – I have no objection to listening to the case tonight
Reynolds – I have no problem either. Unless I am way off base this has been in the office for a while. I gave up my evening so I could hear this. If we are going to let someone from town to give us the disrespect to not trust our hearing this. Mayor and Council are not to interfere with the Board of Adjustment.
Pasola – I think we should adjourn. As the secretary said the applications come to her and not Mayor and Council.
Dixon – I also do not like this last second throwing out the anchor. Jenkinson’s has spent a lot of money on professionals. The applicant will have to pay for them to come in February. I would like to hear it all at once.
Davis – Regardless of hearing tonight or February – we are here now.
Driber – I agree with Mr. Pasola – I do not see any gain in hearing the presentation tonight and then coming in February and hear it all over again. Seems to me that we hear it all in February.
McFadden – I know the opponents neighbors will not see as much on live stream,
Struncius – I understand where Mr. Kelly, Vice Chair Reynolds, Mr. Dixon and Secretary Schneider are frustrated that the town has gone down the path to not trust our decisions. I believe we are caught in the “Why”. I am afraid if I do not adjourn there will be an issue. I believe that you (John Jackson)
